Why Europe needs now to take ownership of the Russia-Ukraine conflict

Like many Europeans, I am devastated by the war in Ukraine. Not only because of the horrors of war but also for our collective failure to prevent it and all that now follows. It is a war that touches on many European traumas. There are strong historical parallels at play, including some related to the outbreak of WW2. There are more recent ones too. For those who have lived through the wars in Chechnya, South Caucasus, and the Balkans — what is happening now in Ukraine brings back terrible memories.

A dangerous time

As I’ve written elsewhere, the European response so far has been driven by restraint and a wish not to further escalate the conflict. The current approach is a mix of escalating sanctions, strengthening NATO presence in member countries neighbouring Russia and Ukraine, isolating Russia, providing military aid and equipment to Ukraine, and receiving a large number of refugees. It is a cautious and reactive approach, crafted on European compromise, and one that sets a pragmatic course. For this sangfroid by our leaders, I am grateful. We are living through an extraordinarily dangerous time and coolheadedness is much needed.

Not our finest moment

There is, however, an unfolding dark side to the European response to the war in Ukraine. It is a side driven by an attempt to destabilise Russia through economic actions that (let’s face it) predominantly hit ordinary Russians, and the consequences of living in our own propaganda bubble (and yes, we have one too). It is enabled by a collective willingness to set aside our values and disregard the human rights of the “other side”.

By hitting Russia economically in this way, we are causing yet untold hardship among ordinary Russians — many who oppose this war. It is a hardship that follows the rapid and at times irresponsible exit of business from Russia, over-sanctioning by financial institutions, and the consequent disruption of financial links and supply chains. When the dust settles, the full extent of the pain inflicted on people who have nothing to do with this war will be revealed.

Then there is the widespread and unchecked discrimination against Russians. Crude discriminatory remarks and actions are played out at different levels — online and in restaurants, schools, to businesses. Russians abroad are increasingly ostracised simply because they are Russian. Aside from the fact that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of nationality, it is also counter-productive. This prejudice will not be forgotten. The trust built with ordinary Russians since the fall of the Berlin Wall is being undermined. It will be hard to build bridges again down the line.

As to the drive for blanket economic isolation of Russia, we are only just beginning to feel the effects of it on our own supply chains and economies. Energy issues aside, Russia and Ukraine, for example, are both large wheat producers. Together they produce more than the combined wheat output of the US, France and Australia. Certain goods will soon be rationed in Europe and what we take for granted will no longer be on offer. OECD estimates on the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are stark. Global economic growth may drop by more than 1 percentage point this year and inflation, already high, could rise by a further 2.5 percentage points on aggregate across countries.

Collective amnesia?

I am surprised by how quick we forget that peace in Europe over the last 70 years or so is very much the result of economic integration and collective security. The “European Project”, embodied now in the European Union (EU) and NATO were both born around the same time — just after WW2. They enabled previous foes, who started two world wars between them, to co-exist and prosper. If we are to learn from history, then the logic of isolating Russia (and rejecting Ukraine’s application for fast-tracked membership of the EU) escapes me.

The giant awakes

One of the key side-effects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is perhaps best described as the awakening of the European giant. European leaders have taken decisions over Ukraine that were unimaginable before the war. The Versailles declaration (10–11 March 2022) saw an unprecedented commitment to bolster European defence capabilities, reduce energy dependency, and build a more robust (read: resource independent) economic base. Critically, though, there is a new European self-confidence emerging in relation to Russia — and to Europe’s role in the world.

It is a European self-confidence backed by other economic, military, and demographic realities too. For example, our GDP of USD 17.1 trillion is 11.5 times greater than Russia’s (at USD1.5 trillion), which, by the way, is smaller than Italy’s (at USD1.8 trillion). Combined defence spending (at over USD200 billion in 2020) in the EU is around three times that of Russia (at around USD65 billion in 2019). And the EU’s almost half-a-billion (and still growing) population is three times the size of Russia’s 144 million (and shrinking) population.

Owning it

There are a few things we must now “own” as Europeans in relation to the war in Ukraine. How we “own” this war will very much determine the future peace we and our descendants will or will not have.

First, we must own our responsibility in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Many observers of East-West relations will tell you the vectors for this war were visible already five years or more ago — and rooted in (what at the time seemed reasonable, I’m sure) decisions taken 20–30 years before in European capitols. These decisions placed Russia (and states like Ukraine) outside of the European economic and security collective.

Second, we must own that this is a conflict where one European country has invaded another. It is not only a conflict only in Europe but also a conflict that involves two European countries: Ukraine and Russia. It is our business as Europeans to resolve it — and to resolve it sustainably.

Third, we must own the future we are crafting for European generations to come. What happens in the next weeks and months will profoundly shape the future of our children and our children’s children. As someone who grew up during the Cold War, I would be ashamed to be part of a generation that presided over the lowering again of the Iron Curtain — and a stage set for a new era of existential threat to Europe and the world.

Finally, we must own our ability to resolve this (and prevent potential other) European conflict(s). Part of this involves forward-thinking when it comes to isolating Russia economically and checking the Russian xenophobia virtually, on our streets, educational establishments, and in our boardrooms. Then comes the heavy-lifting, which is about setting the stage for the full integration of Russia and Ukraine (and Belorussia, Turkey, Moldova, left-out Balkan countries, and the Caucasian republics, for that matter) into the European economic and security architecture.

Too bold or naive?

Many reading this may say that integrating our European neighbours, and countries recently at war, is too bold a step or an unrealistic way to safeguard future European security. They will do well to study the run-up and parties to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)(the EU’s precursor) in 1951. As Robert Schuman, the Luxembourgian-born French statesman who founded the ECSC said at the time, “World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.”

That aside, the benefits to Europe of such an approach are self-evident, albeit not easy and complex to realise. It is in our interest not only to set the foundations for lasting peace in Europe but indeed leapfrog towards the objectives of the Versailles declaration. And maybe, in the course of this arduous and difficult work, Europe will have awakened and emerge as a fully-formed (and hopefully wiser) giant.

Next steps

The work ahead is going to be difficult. It involves three hard-to-reach objectives:

Stop the fighting, save lives, and bring us back from the brink of an all-out war between Russia and NATO. As Zelensky says, negotiation failure cannot be an option, unless we are stupid enough to toy with the prospect of a nuclear war. The immediate target for bilateral talks between Ukraine and Russia is an end to hostilities. A set of confidence-building measures should be considered, including functioning humanitarian corridors, prisoner exchanges, toning down the strategic communications campaigns, and agreed demilitarised areas.

Enable a solution to the crisis that provides security guarantees for all parties, restores territorial integrity for Ukraine, and is based on international law. A reconstruction package for Ukraine is now needed and maybe a devolved governance formula within Ukraine for contested regions. These negotiations will need to involve the European Union and NATO, alongside Ukraine and Russia. Progressing dialogue should also involve confidence-building measures, including the gradual normalisation of economic relations.

Set the stage for a new and inclusive European economic and security framework. This is a visionary piece that will take time to realise and needs to be driven by Robert Schuman’s words quoted above. It has to involve a set of collective economic and security summits that bring together EU/EEA countries and the United Kingdom/US with Balkan countries, Ukraine, Russia, Belorussia, the Caucasian republics and Turkey.

David Nyheim is a Managing Partner of International Conflict and Security Consulting Ltd. (Malta) and the Practice Lead for Mediation and Dispute Resolution. He was part of the very first non-governmental dialogue efforts between Chechen proxies and the Russian government during the late 1990s, process-designed and implemented effective national and sub-national dialogue in Georgia, Indonesia, Mauritania, Fiji, and Kyrgyzstan, and successfully helped companies resolve disputes with communities and armed groups in Nigeria, Iraq, Honduras, and Guinea. David is a pre-approved member of the specialised Mediator Roster of the United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, and the Crisis Prevention and Response Roster of the United Nations Development Programme. His opinions are his own and do not reflect the policy or positions of any of the institutions mentioned above.

Photo credits: Photo by Kevin Schmid on Unsplash